Esther Baker Crowdfunding Page Taken Down Over False Statements

Defended banner for articles defended in court

[UPDATE – 17 August 2022. Esther Baker sued over this article in High Court Case QB-2020-001013. She lost. The court granted both summary judgement and strike-out finding the claim had no realistic prospect of success. No other person mentioned sued and the time limit has elapsed. Judgement here. My follow-up article here. This article has been added to the “DEFENDED!” category and readers may rely on it.]

EstherBaker

Esther Baker has made numerous allegations of sexual abuse. Now she is begging for money for a court case – but she has failed to tell backers the whole story.

Esther Baker’s crowdsourcing page has been taken down after Simpson Millar solicitors (whose name was placed on the page without their authorisation) asked for their name to be removed. These days, crowdsourcing is everywhere. Whether it is for a new type of watch, a security camera with a battery that lasts a year or a revolutionary type of food storage, there is something for everyone. Crowdsourcing has its downsides though, with many campaigns that do not deliver or which even turn out to be fraudulent, such as the Kickstarter for board game, “The Doom that Came to Atlantic City” (archive). Last week Esther Baker, an unsubstantiated rape accuser, began a campaign on Crowdjustice.com. She claims that John Hemming, the man she accused of rape, has defamed her by calling her a liar and is seeking funds to sue for defamation. She is entitled to her day in court. However, Baker’s campaign left out many key facts about the case. If backers knew the whole truth, would they be so keen to contribute?

Esther Baker’s campaign is aimed at raising money from well meaning members of the public who are passionate about achieving justice. However, the campaign (which is down for the time being) was at best misleading and at worst actionable misrepresentation, leaving out key facts about Baker’s mental health, the evidence in the case, its current state and her various changes of lawyer. By asking for this money, Baker is inviting backers to spend their money with her instead of with other good causes, so in this article I set out the truth about the case.

CrowdJusticeLogo

Crowd Justice says it helps people fund legal action, but what protections are there for donors against misleading campaigns?

Esther Baker’s campaign as first published opened with the following lines – “My name is Esther Baker, and I am a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, grooming and domestic violence. I suffer mental health conditions as a result of my abuse including severe depression and PTSD”.

Baker claims she is a victim of childhood sexual abuse and grooming, but it is public knowledge that despite extensive police investigation, no one has been convicted. Therefore, Baker’s claim to be a survivor is unproven. In fact, according to the Independent Inquiry on Child Sexual Abuse, there were as many as 11 police officers involved in the investigation. Witness statements were taken from 30 individuals. Ms Baker alone was interviewed for a total of 91½ hours, with the transcripts of those interviews running to 1,081 pages. No one was convicted. No one was even charged.

More importantly, Esther Baker has given an incomplete account regarding her mental health. Baker’s pleadings are available to the public without the Court’s permission under Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 5.4C. In her campaign she refers to Continue reading

Share Button

Supreme Court: the US Federal Government Can in Fact Regulate Private Company Editorial

Earl Warren

Earl Warren, left leaning Supreme Court Justice, ruled in favour of regulating private corporate speech to be fair to all sides.

The recent decision by the Trump administration to collect evidence of political bias at social media companies is to be welcomed. However it has led to gloating on the Left, and concerns on the Right about the legal issues. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is said, prohibits interference by the Federal Government or by Congress. Rubbish! The Supreme Court has already upheld such legislation, and not even the recent, Conservative leaning Supreme Court but the Left-leaning activist Warren Court. I am speaking of course, of the FCC Fairness Doctrine (archive).

The Fairness Doctrine was a rule imposed on early, analog, radio broadcasters as well as television broadcasters. Because there were few radio television channels, they operated as gatekeepers to the national political conversation. As a result, over a number of cases the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) began treating them somewhat like utilities.

The Mayflower Doctrine was a ruling of the FCC in 1941 that radio stations were prohibited from editorialising in matters of news or politics for fear that they would otherwise simply be used to propagandise on behalf of Conservative business owners. It was superceded by the later, ‘Fairness Doctrine’. The rule required that broadcasters dealing with controversial issues present both sides, grant equal time to both sides and give those publicly criticised the opportunity to respond.

Eventually, a company called Red Lion Broadcasting challenged the rule and the litigation made its way to the Supreme Court. Which ruled unanimously in favour of the FCC. The full case name is, Red Lion Broadcasting Company, Incorporated, et al. v. Federal Communications Commission, et al. and the court’s opinion can be found here.

HELD (amongst other things) – The fairness doctrine and its specific manifestations in the personal attack and political editorial rules do not violate the First Amendment.

Continue reading

Share Button

Jess Phillips MP, Her Outside Earnings … and How to Take Them Away

Defended banner for articles defended in court

[UPDATE – 17 August 2022. Esther Baker sued over this article in High Court Case QB-2020-001013. She lost. The court granted both summary judgement and strike-out finding the claim had no realistic prospect of success. No other person mentioned sued and the time limit has elapsed. Judgement here. My follow-up article here. This article has been added to the “DEFENDED!” category and readers may rely on it.]

Official_portrait_of_Jess_Philips

Jess Philips MP (official portrait, CC-BY-SA 3.0 license).

My last article was an exposé of the repugnant female MP Jess Phillips and her irresponsible, exploitative behaviour towards a mentally ill, alleged child abuse victim Esther Baker. As my article explained, there is now ample evidence Baker (who claims to hear voices) has accused the wrong men of rape. Conveniently for Phillips, one of them was her electoral opponent. The court process Esther Baker has initiated, egged on by others, has left Baker with a costs bill likely to be in the region of £12,000. Law enforcement and the public purse have wasted even larger sums. This article gives details and then provides a contacts spreadsheets for any reader who would like to help organise a boycott.

Unlike Baker, Phillips has no money problems. In fact her most recent register of interests (archive) shows a plethora of writing and speaking engagements. It is easy to see why the Corbynites dislike her so – she is hardly a horny-handed son of toil. In the last year Phillips has had numerous writing, speaking and television engagements (including her book) bringing her in around £45,000. She finds time to be Deputy Editor of House Magazine at £2,000 a quarter. All this whilst drawing a full time salary as a Member of Parliament employed by the good people of Birmingham Yardley.

Phillips has an extraordinary number of enemies –

Share Button

Jess Phillips MP, Mark Watts and Who Raped Esther Baker?

Defended banner for articles defended in court

[UPDATE – 17 August 2022. Esther Baker sued over this article in High Court Case QB-2020-001013. She lost. The court granted both summary judgement and strike-out finding the claim had no realistic prospect of success. No other person mentioned sued and the time limit has elapsed. Judgement here. My follow-up article here. This article has been added to the “DEFENDED!” category and readers may rely on it.]

Official_portrait_of_Jess_Philips

Jess Philips MP (official portrait, CC-BY-SA 3.0 license).

Who raped Esther Baker? Baker is suing John Hemming for libel, claiming he raped her. He is counter-suing. On 15 April 2019 I sat in the High Court with John Hemming, Barbara Hewson and Richard-Owen Thomas and looked on as Baker, accompanied only by former Exaro Editor Mark Watts, was handed a costs order likely to run to about £12,000. Baker was also ordered to have a psychiatric assessment to be filed at court. During the hearing it was revealed that Baker asserts that she is seriously mentally ill. Politicians and ‘journalists’ such as Labour MP Jess Phillips and former Exaro editor Mark Watts have encouraged Baker’s allegations yet Jess Phillips is not Baker’s MP and never has been. Were Phillips and Watts right to encourage a vulnerable mentally ill woman in making unproven allegations public? Were they right to expose her to the possibility of mental injury from public criticism and controversy? Were they right to expose her to legal risks? Have Watts and Phillips helped Esther Baker … or benefited from her distress?

As my previous article recounted, Esther Baker is suing John Hemming for libel – without legal representation. He is counter-suing. The claim is not yet decided but outcomes so far are have not been good for her. Barrister Barbara Hewson’s excellent article is here for an independent perspective.

Amongst other things, John Hemming alleges Esther Baker’s lawsuit is out of time. Despite regularly insisting on Twitter that the ‘truth’ will be revealed she has point blank refused to particularise the alleged ‘rape’. This led to the judge telling her that Hemming did not know the claim he had to meet – Baker’s pleadings were inadequate. She claims in reply that her lawsuit is not out of time because she was mentally ill and lacked mental capacity to litigate for part of the limitation period.

My earlier article did not cover Esther Baker’s mental health problems, as I wanted to treat the issue sensitively and appropriately in this piece. On Twitter Baker has admitted to being, ‘psychotic’ (archive) and referred to hearing voices. In the publicly available pleadings in her case it is alleged that she suffers from auditory and ‘command’ hallucinations. In simple terms, she hears voices in her head that tell her to do things. Sometimes she obeys.

For a woman in Baker’s position to bring a lawsuit as litigant in person is challenging. Whilst the case is not yet decided, there is now significant evidence on the other side. As the Mail reported (archive) Baker has admitted that she told police her rapist had a curved penis and a birthmark on their back. Hemming has never had either (and there is a photograph of his back exhibited in evidence) but does have a distinguishing characteristic that Baker did not mention in her pleadings. So if Baker was raped at all, there are good reasons a fair minded observer might conclude that it was not Hemming. Now a court will decide.

CreepyJessPhillipsSweetDreams

Jess Phillips eerily wishes Baker ‘sweet’ dreams, a few months after she accused Hemming.

Continue reading

Share Button